Archive for ‘Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII’ Feature

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of July 16 – 23.

♨ 1a. Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board 2008 ONCA 799 [This opinion refers to an earlier opinion in the matter; as a result, there are two related cases essentially tied for first place.]

[1] For the second time in three years Miguna Miguna’s statement of claim has come to this Court entirely – or, in this case, almost entirely – struck down. In the action he claims damages against the prosecution and police defendants for conduct arising out of his arrest, trial

Here are the three most-consulted English-language cases on CanLII for the week of July 8 – 16.

[Note: it’s likely that people accessing the Supreme Court pentalogy on copyright released this week will have used the SCC site hosted by Lexum, which probably explains why they’re not among the top three opinions.]

[1] The applicants are in breach of the Canada Elections Act[1] by reason of their failure to comply with the requirement that they pay their leadership expenses by December 31, 2011 pursuant to the order of Kane, J., dated January 28, 2010, and seek an order permitting an extension of time to pay their respective expenses. The respondent opposes their application.

[1] The parties to this appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Clements, were motor bike enthusiasts. August 7th, 2004, found them en route from their home in Prince George, British Columbia, to visit their daughter in Kananaskis, Alberta. The weather was wet. Mr. Clements was driving the bike and Mrs. Clements was riding behind on the passenger seat. The bike was about 100 pounds overloaded. Unbeknownst to Mr. Clements, a nail had punctured the bike’s rear tire.

[2] Toward the end of the meal, Gloria Musselman left the table to attend the ladies washroom. Washrooms were located at the basement level one floor below the dining room. To gain access to the washroom, Ms. Musselman was required to descend a series of steps comprised of eight risers. She then had to turn ninety degrees to her right and descend two further risers to reach the basement

[1] This is a credentials hearing. The Applicant, Michael Grant Gayman, requests readmission to the Law Society of British Columbia, as a barrister and solicitor. The Applicant was disbarred by a hearing panel of the Law Society on May 6, 1999. The basis for disbarment was conduct unbecoming a lawyer. Specifically, the Applicant, acting as a trustee, knowingly breached a trust instrument resulting in a loss of approximately one million dollars to

[1] Dangerous driving causing death is a serious criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Like all criminal offences, it consists of two components: prohibited conduct — operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner resulting in death — and a required degree of fault — a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in all the circumstances. The fault component is critical, as it ensures

[1] The respondents, Claude Robinson and Les Productions Nilem Inc., are asking this Court to order the applicants to provide security in the amount of $3,250,000 for the amounts they would have to pay should their appeals to this Court

[2] This appeal raises the question of when an intervening act by another person severs the causal connection between the accused’s act and the victim’s death, thereby absolving the accused of legal responsibility

[2] This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.

[2] This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred

[1] The main question in this appeal concerns the legal effect of a rent increase purportedly imposed by a landlord in respect of a residential tenancy without written notice to the tenant. At issue is the interplay between ss. 127(1), 127(4) and 141 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 24 (the “Act”).